Aezakmi vs Undetectable: 2026 Head-to-Head Comparison
Aezakmi vs Undetectable: 2026 Head-to-Head Comparison
I’ve been running multi-account operations out of Singapore for a few years now, and the antidetect browser you pick shapes everything downstream, from how many proxies you burn through to how often accounts survive a morning checkpoint. Aezakmi and Undetectable are two of the more frequently debated options in forums I follow, and the conversation usually splits along geographic lines: operators in the CIS region lean toward Aezakmi, while English-first teams tend to default to Undetectable.
Both are Chromium-based antidetect browsers. Neither sells you proxies directly. What they do is isolate each browser profile behind its own spoofed fingerprint, so that when you route traffic through a residential or mobile proxy, the upstream platform sees what looks like a distinct, ordinary device. The quality of that fingerprint spoofing, how cleanly the proxy binding works, and how much the tool gets out of your way when you’re spinning up 50 profiles on a Monday morning: those are the things that actually matter.
The short verdict: Undetectable wins for teams getting started, operators who want a free tier to validate a workflow, and anyone running predominantly English-language platforms. Aezakmi earns its place for CIS-market operators, higher-volume automation setups, and situations where the Russian-language support and regional focus translates into faster resolution when something breaks. For proxy-heavy workflows, both support SOCKS5 and residential proxies cleanly, but the experience diverges at the edges. Read on for the specifics.
TL;DR comparison table
| Axis | Aezakmi | Undetectable |
|---|---|---|
| Starting price | ~$15/mo (entry tier) | Free plan available; paid from ~$49/mo |
| Pricing model | Per-profile-count, monthly/annual | Per-profile-count + cloud storage, monthly/annual |
| Proxy types supported | HTTP, HTTPS, SOCKS5 (residential, DC, mobile, ISP) | HTTP, HTTPS, SOCKS5 (residential, DC, mobile, ISP) |
| Concurrent profiles | Tier-dependent (higher tiers: 100+) | Free: 5 cloud; paid scales to 300+ |
| Fingerprint engine | Chromium-based, canvas/WebGL/font/TZ spoofing | Chromium-based, similar spoofing stack |
| Automation API | Selenium, Puppeteer, Playwright | Selenium, Puppeteer, Playwright |
| Team/role management | Available on mid/upper tiers | Available on paid plans |
| OS support | Windows, macOS (Linux in beta) | Windows, macOS (Linux partial) |
| Primary market | CIS, Eastern Europe, global | Global, English-first |
| Support language | Russian + English | English-first, multi-language |
| Target user | CIS operators, volume automators | SMB teams, beginners, English platforms |
Aezakmi at a glance
Aezakmi launched with a CIS-market focus and that origin is still visible in the product today, for better and worse. The UI is available in Russian and English, the documentation leans toward Russian-first, and the community support channels are most active in Telegram groups that operate primarily in Russian. If you’re based in Singapore like me and running Southeast Asian platforms, that’s a slight friction tax. If you’re running Yandex, VKontakte, or Avito flows, it’s actually an advantage because the fingerprint profiles are tuned to account for Cyrillic-region browser norms.
On the technical side, Aezakmi handles the fingerprint stack you’d expect from a mature Chromium wrapper: canvas noise injection, WebGL renderer spoofing, font enumeration masking, screen resolution and timezone binding, and per-profile geolocation lock. Each profile stores its own cookies, local storage, and proxy assignment. You paste a proxy string (IP:port:user:pass) into the profile config and the browser uses that proxy for all traffic from that profile. The binding is clean and I haven’t seen cross-profile leakage in testing, which is the core thing you need.
Entry pricing sits around $15/month for a small profile count, scaling up to roughly $99/month for high-volume plans. Annual billing typically shaves 20,30% off that. For the head-to-head proxy axes below, I’m treating Aezakmi’s proxy handling as the product being compared, since neither Aezakmi nor Undetectable sells proxy bandwidth. You bring your own proxies; the browser just routes them. See the full Aezakmi review for a deeper teardown of the fingerprint layer.
Undetectable at a glance
Undetectable.io entered the market with a free tier, which immediately changed the conversation. You can run up to five cloud-synced profiles without paying anything, and local profiles are unlimited on the free plan. That’s a meaningful on-ramp for anyone validating whether antidetect browser tooling fits their workflow before committing budget. It’s how I first tested the product myself.
The paid tiers start around $49/month (Base plan) and step up to approximately $99/month (Professional), with enterprise pricing available. Cloud profile sync is a distinguishing feature: your profiles live server-side and can be pulled down to any machine, which simplifies team handoffs. Role-based access control is available on paid plans, so you can give a VA access to specific profiles without handing over full account credentials.
The fingerprint engine is competitive. Undetectable’s spoofing stack covers the same surface area as Aezakmi: canvas, WebGL, fonts, screen, timezone, language, user-agent. The team’s blog and documentation are in English, support tickets are answered in English, and the overall UX has an international product feel rather than a tool that was translated after the fact. For operators running platforms where English-language browser fingerprints are the norm, that alignment matters. The full Undetectable review covers the fingerprint test methodology I ran.
Head-to-head
IP pool size
Neither Aezakmi nor Undetectable maintains an IP pool. You’re sourcing proxies externally, residential or mobile from providers like Brightdata or Smartproxy, ISP proxies, or datacenter ranges, and assigning them per profile. The relevant question here is proxy type support, and both tools handle HTTP, HTTPS, and SOCKS5 across residential, datacenter, mobile, and ISP proxy formats without issue. Aezakmi has some documented optimizations for mobile (4G/LTE) proxy rotation scenarios that show up in their changelog; Undetectable’s proxy panel is cleaner for paste-in bulk configuration. Call this a tie.
Rotation control
For workflows that require proxy rotation between sessions, both tools let you assign a new proxy to a profile on the fly or before each launch. Neither has a native rotation scheduler built into the core UI, meaning you’re either doing this manually or through the automation API. If you’re automating with Puppeteer or Playwright, you can script proxy swaps between profile launches programmatically via the browser’s API endpoints. Aezakmi’s API documentation for this is thinner than Undetectable’s, where the English-language API docs are more complete. Slight edge to Undetectable for automation-driven rotation setups.
Geo coverage
Both browsers bind geolocation, timezone, and language to whatever you configure in the profile. Undetectable has a slightly more polished geo-config UI where you can set city-level coordinates alongside timezone, which reduces the geo-mismatch fingerprinting signal when pairing with a residential proxy in a specific city. Aezakmi handles this too but the configuration is a few extra clicks. If you’re operating at scale across multiple countries simultaneously, Undetectable’s geo config UX saves time.
Connection success rate
This metric is mostly downstream of your proxy quality, but the browser does affect it at the margins. A sloppy fingerprint creates additional friction that well-tuned platforms catch even on clean IPs. In my own testing on Southeast Asian e-commerce platforms, both browsers produced comparable account survival rates when paired with quality residential proxies. Aezakmi’s fingerprint tuning for CIS platforms was noticeably better on Russian-language targets. On global English platforms, Undetectable was marginally cleaner based on EFF’s Cover Your Tracks fingerprint uniqueness scoring and my own informal account health monitoring. I wouldn’t call this a decisive gap either way.
Speed
Profile launch time matters when you’re opening 20+ sessions in sequence. Aezakmi is faster on profile cold-start in my experience, particularly on Windows. Undetectable’s cloud sync feature adds a small latency hit when loading a profile that was last used on a different machine, because it’s pulling state from the server first. For local-only workflows, this doesn’t apply. For teams sharing profiles across machines, that sync latency is the tradeoff for the convenience. If raw speed on a single machine matters, Aezakmi has a slight edge.
Pricing per GB
Neither product charges per GB since they’re not proxy vendors. Aezakmi’s pricing is strictly per profile count and team seats per month. Undetectable adds cloud storage as a factor on higher plans but it’s still not bandwidth-based. On a per-profile-per-dollar basis, Aezakmi’s entry tier is cheaper (roughly $15/month for a small plan versus $49/month to get full Undetectable features). Undetectable’s free tier changes this calculus for low-volume operators who can stay within the five-cloud-profile limit. For anyone running 50+ profiles, Aezakmi’s pricing structure tends to be more cost-efficient at equivalent feature levels.
Session persistence
Both browsers store session state (cookies, local storage, cache) inside the profile container. A profile you close today opens tomorrow with the same session intact, as long as the proxy you assigned is still valid. Undetectable’s cloud sync means that session state persists across machines, which is useful for teams. Aezakmi’s session persistence is local unless you’re using their team-sharing feature to export profiles. For solo operators: no meaningful difference. For distributed teams: Undetectable wins here.
Concurrent connections
Concurrent profile capacity scales with your paid tier on both platforms. Aezakmi’s higher tiers support 100+ simultaneous running profiles; Undetectable’s Professional plan and above supports comparable numbers, with enterprise plans going higher. The free Undetectable plan caps you at five concurrent cloud profiles, which is enough to test but not to operate at scale. On a pure ceiling basis, both can handle high-volume concurrent operations on appropriate plans. I haven’t hit a hard technical ceiling on either in normal use.
Use-case verdicts
Airdrop farming and crypto multi-accounting. Aezakmi tends to be more popular in these circles, partly because a significant chunk of the community runs through Telegram groups where the product has better brand recognition, and partly because the profile volume pricing is more favorable for operators running dozens of wallets. The workflows documented at airdropfarming.org/blog/ frequently come up alongside Aezakmi references. Winner: Aezakmi.
SMB team running English-language ad accounts. Undetectable’s cloud sync, role-based access, and English-first documentation make it the better fit for a small team where different people need to pick up the same profiles. The free tier also lets you onboard a new VA and have them test the workflow without a purchase commitment. Winner: Undetectable.
High-volume automation with external proxy rotation. Both support the Puppeteer/Playwright/Selenium API. Undetectable’s API documentation is more complete and better maintained in English, which matters when you’re debugging a rotation script at 2am. If you’re building automation pipelines where proxy assignment is scripted rather than manual, Undetectable’s developer experience is smoother. Winner: Undetectable (marginal).
CIS-platform operations. If your targets are primarily Russian-language platforms, Vkontakte, Avito, Yandex, or CIS-region e-commerce, Aezakmi’s regional tuning and native Russian support is a concrete advantage. The browser fingerprint profiles account for CIS-region norms in a way that feels native rather than patched. Winner: Aezakmi.
Who should pick Aezakmi
Pick Aezakmi if your operational focus is the CIS market or you’re working within communities where Russian-language support and Telegram-based community troubleshooting are assets rather than liabilities. The entry-tier pricing is lower than Undetectable’s paid plans, which makes it the right call when you need a lot of profiles without a large monthly budget. If you’re doing multi-account operations at volume and cost per profile is the primary constraint, Aezakmi’s pricing structure rewards you at scale. Also pick it if you’ve found that the mobile proxy tuning or CIS fingerprint profiles have given you measurably better survival rates on specific target platforms.
The tradeoff you accept is thinner English documentation, a support team that responds faster in Russian, and a slightly less polished UX for geo-config and proxy bulk management. Those are real friction points for English-first operators, but they’re manageable.
Who should pick Undetectable
Pick Undetectable if you’re starting out and want to validate the workflow before paying. The free tier is genuine, not crippled to the point of uselessness. Five cloud profiles is enough to test an account creation flow, check that your proxy binding works, and measure fingerprint scores before you’ve committed a dollar. That makes Undetectable the lower-risk first step for anyone new to antidetect tooling.
Pick it also if you’re running a small team where profile sharing and access control matter, if your targets are primarily English-language platforms, or if you need clean English API documentation to build automation scripts. The W3C’s browser fingerprinting resistance guidance describes the surface area that detection systems target; Undetectable’s fingerprint stack and the way the team communicates about it in their docs maps closely onto that spec, which gives me more confidence that they’re tracking the right threat model.
Verdict overall
These two browsers are more similar than the marketing around them suggests. Both will route your proxies cleanly, both will spoof the standard fingerprint vectors, and both will give you session persistence and automation API access on paid plans. The decision comes down to market focus and team structure.
Aezakmi for CIS operations, volume pricing sensitivity, and high-profile-count workflows where you want a lower monthly bill. Undetectable for English-first platforms, team environments that benefit from cloud sync, or anyone who wants to start free and upgrade when the workflow proves out.
If you’re forced to pick one without additional context: Undetectable is the safer default for a new operator who doesn’t already have a CIS-specific reason to go the other way. The free tier reduces the risk of a wrong call, and the English documentation reduces the time-to-productive. Aezakmi is the right call when you have a specific reason to choose it, and those reasons are common enough in the niches where it dominates.
Verify current pricing directly before committing: both vendors adjust plans periodically and the numbers in this article reflect conditions as of May 2026.
Written by Xavier Fok
disclosure: this article may contain affiliate links. if you buy through them we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. verdicts are independent of payouts. last reviewed by Xavier Fok on 2026-05-19.